Anyways, USGS & NOAA have been caught faking the temperature statistics again and again. There's really no reason for a common person to believe anything they have to say.

If somebody wants to prove global warming to the masses, they'll have to do a much better job than Al Gore did. That movie was just a hair better than a "science-based" Christian documentaries. If somebody wants to show diffraction/absorption spectrums, does the math, etc., I'd be more than willing to watch, but I've caught USGS & NOAA myself lying, so I don't believe their statistics for a second.

If you grow a tree, it traps carbon. When you burn that tree, it releases that carbon.

The difference is a (roughly) even impact on the environment over the period of the tree's initial growth through to the point that it is burned up; about the same amount of carbon goes in as is released later.

Hydrocarbon deposits, though, are trapped over a long period of time. For example, the roots of the tree mentioned earlier would not get burned when the rest of the tree gets burned, and even decay would release some but not all of those carbon deposits back.

Millions of years go by, and a surplus builds up. The convection of the continental plates releases only a tiny amount per year.

Along comes humans and industrialization. The trapped hydrocarbons are being released at a much higher rate and are not getting reabsorbed by trees and other biological carbon traps (oceans, grasses, bacteria, ...) as fast as they are being released.

« Last Edit: August 31, 2008, 09:58:14 PM by Hermes »

Logged

Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons. --Michael Shermer

The history of religion is a long attempt to reconcile old custom with new reason, to find a sound theory for an absurd practice. --Sir James George Frazer

I go with the scientific consensus; anthropogenic climate change is a reality.

Yet, let's say it isn't. Let's say what humans have done so far has had no significant impact. The climate is still changing. If it is shown that we are not to blame for the change, we have to decide if we want to do something about it. To say we can not do anything is short sighted. Off the top of my head; We could pump dust or another substance into the atmosphere using a variety of methods to increase the amount of sun light that is being reflected into space. Or we could induce a few volcanic eruptions to slow the warming trend. Are either of these tactics practical? Maybe not, but why give up so fast on any solutions?

Bottom line: Even if we are not to blame, we still have a problem to deal with.

What you're suggesting is called geoengineering. It could have disasterous consequences.

But your suggestions are similar to an experiment- a load of tiny salt particles will actually condense water in the air and form a cloud. I saw this on video, and it was pretty amazing. Just 300 salt flares set off similtaneously. Created a cloud, and the salt in the water in the clouds keeps it from raining down, and increases the reflectivity by 10%.

Anyways, USGS & NOAA have been caught faking the temperature statistics again and again. There's really no reason for a common person to believe anything they have to say.

You guys are missing the point... Global warming is probbly the least biggest concern about our current level of burning fossil fuels. A few tempatures rise here and there isn't going to be the worst thing in the world, it's going to suck for some people on the coast and some ecosystems but as a whole it's not going to be that bad, BUT the global warming isn't the real issue it's the posion from

Tailpipe emissions: This is what most people think of when they think of vehicle air pollution; the products of burning fuel in the vehicle's engine, emitted from the vehicle's exhaust system. The major pollutants emitted include: Hydrocarbons: this class is made up of unburned or partially burned fuel, and is a major contributor to urban smog, as well as being toxic. They can cause liver damage and even cancer. Nitrogen oxides (NOx): These are generated when nitrogen in the air reacts with oxygen under the high temperature and pressure conditions inside the engine. NOx emissions contribute to both smog and acid rain. Carbon monoxide (CO): a product of incomplete combustion, carbon monoxide reduces the blood's ability to carry oxygen and is dangerous to people with heart disease. Carbon dioxide (CO2): Emissions of carbon dioxide are an increasing concern as its role in global warming as a greenhouse gas has become more apparent. Particulates. Particle of micrometre size. Sulphur oxide (SOx) General term for oxides of sulphur, mostly sulfur dioxide and some sulfur trioxide, from coal or unrefined oil.

A few tempture changes here and there arn't the real problem, the problem is that these chemicals are released into our world that damages the planets life and our world can handle some of them and others cause problems. Alll you have to do is fucking look at smog, i mean you people who are buyin into the oil companies misinformation campain can question a few tempatures here and there and doubt global warming, but you cannot just close your eyes and ignore things like smog, and acid rain, and say that there's no danger in doing that for the next 100 years. it's just ignorance to think that.

the bottom line is that ciggarettes cause cancer no matter what misinfomation tabacco companies said..and Our current burning/use /abuse of fossil fuels is harming the planet. Dispite misinformation by oil companies.

What you're suggesting is called geoengineering. It could have disasterous consequences.

But your suggestions are similar to an experiment- a load of tiny salt particles will actually condense water in the air and form a cloud. I saw this on video, and it was pretty amazing. Just 300 salt flares set off similtaneously. Created a cloud, and the salt in the water in the clouds keeps it from raining down, and increases the reflectivity by 10%.

Interesting, isn't it? The northern African countries have an opportunity coming available to them that would make cloud seeding look like using a squirt gun on a forest fire. I haven't seen anyone else talk about this, but the elements of this are already there, but would take massive investments. If I were a CEO of a European company, I would be putting people silently to work on this right now;

1. Build a solar array to provide power to Europe.

2. Use money from #1 to fund more solar arrays. As expansion happens, have a mix of thermal solar (with heat stored in salts for night use) and photovoltaics for immediate use.

3. Repeat.

4. Use money from above to build desalination plants. (Possibly couple this with hydrogen generation if that tech pans out.)

5. Build water pipelines to the middle of the desert -- where the land is cheap. Build lakes as storage areas. Find natural depressions that can hold ground water in isolated pockets where it can be pumped back out; this reduces evaporation losses.

6. Build farms in these areas, including hydroponics and soil reclamation. (For the soil - do not just dump water there; actually do the work of soil building. Examples of extreme farming and soil building can be found in both Israel and the Brazilian rain forest.)

7. Increase general vegetation including forests. Humidity in the area goes up and does not boil off because of ground cover.

8. Result: The desert turns into prime real estate -- not just for crops, but for living as well. The main problem is how to deal with the extracted salt. Everything else is a money and effort issue; the technology is there to do it now and can be improved over time.

Someone is going to make a massive amount of money off of this. It could also be done in Indian and countries west of India, but not as effectively.

« Last Edit: September 01, 2008, 07:00:26 AM by Hermes »

Logged

Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons. --Michael Shermer

The history of religion is a long attempt to reconcile old custom with new reason, to find a sound theory for an absurd practice. --Sir James George Frazer

USGS/NOAA/etc temperature statistics mean nothing to me. When you start getting into how they generate their numbers, you start noticing how they basically just change up the algorithms to suit their needs. If they need 2005 or 2006 to be the hottest year on record, they just switch up the algorithm.

Nevermind that you can find contemporary reports from 2000, 1999, 1998, or whatever year, where they said that year was the 10th, 15th, or 20th hottest year on record... by 2008, it has become the 3rd, 5th, or 7th hottest year on record. Just a change or two in the magical, mystical algorithm to make it more "advanced" and "robust"... but don't go expecting any "advanced" or "robust" explanation of what it means to be more "advanced" and "robust"... and certainly don't pay an attention to how the new algorithm makes the 1990s and 2000s shoot up like a rocket and makes the dust bowl 1930s seem like cool, breezy years.

I'm talking about wanting to see demonstrations of CO2, O2, water vapor, etc diffracting or absorbing electromagnetic radiation at different frequencies... and then demonstrations of what frequencies the Earth emits to shed heat... and maybe some more demonstrations on top of that.

Can you imagine how much hysteria Al Gore could kick up if these pictures were from the 1990s or 2000s?

or if it reached 121 degrees Fahrenheit in North Dakota and 110 Fahrenheit in Canada?

I've lived in Texas for over 20 years, and the hottest I've ever seen is 114 or 115 Fahrenheit. 121F in North Dakota is nearly unbelievable. And some asshole wants me to believe that 1998 was the hottest year on record? Hmm. No thanks.